3 ms·

Automation, d’oh Outsourcing worked while we didnt have AI to the level we needed It was always gonna be a temporary stopgap. Sorry, the global community does

by EGreg 9mo ago

Automation, d’oh Outsourcing worked while we didnt have AI to the level we needed It was always gonna be a temporary stopgap. Sorry, the global community doesnt have enough empathy for humans THAT far away to actually share wealth w them. At least we graduated to having social safety nets within nations.

rayiner 9mo ago
“Sharing wealth” is an idea that has millions of children’s blood all over it. It’s a recipe for keeping countries poor and backwards, so children die of disease, hunger, and political instability. When my dad was born in a village in the British Dominion of Pakistan, India/Bangladesh/Pakistan and Singapore were similarly poor. Nehru went to Cambridge and learned about socialism. Lee Kuan Yew went to Cambridge and learned about capitalism and high-trust British people: https://youtu.be/b_6H26fpZp8 https://youtu.be/b_6H26fpZp8 The rest is history. Singaporeans now get to stay in their home country, while desis flee to Anglo countries to escape the society Nehru and their grandparents created. Waiting for Europeans to give you money is a loser mentality, and people peddling that mentality in the name of “empathy” are causing harm. What the third world needs from Europe is the social and political technology that Europe itself used to become rich. That’s what people like LKY understood that so many third world leaders failed to learn.
- vivzkestrel 9mo ago
  you most certainly want to watch this one about india since you brought it into the conversation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LveXy5VBGUc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LveXy5VBGUc india is not a poor country anymore
  - rayiner 9mo ago
    India is a desperately poor country. It has a GDP per capita of under $2,700 annually. That’s poorer than the U.S. was in 1880! Singapore has a GDP per capita thirty times higher. If India had grown as quickly as Singapore since 1965, it would have a GDP per capita of $21,000, higher than Russia or Turkey. As recently as 1990, India was richer per capita than China. Today, China is more than four times richer than India per capita. Of course if India can maintain the current growth trajectory for another couple of decades, and doesn’t fall into the middle income trap, that will change. But Nehru really fucked us all over. If he hadn’t become infatuated with socialism, India would already be on the precipice of being a developed country.
    - maxglute 9mo ago
      >doesn’t fall into the middle income trap There's 2 middle income traps. 1) the actual middle income trap, failing to move up value chain 2) the byproduct, traps population to middle income India has the sheer population to pass through 1) eventually. Ironically the byproduct of sheer population means they will unlikely pass 2). Middle income trap logic breaks part for large countries. There's a reason why bottom 40 quantile of PRC, i.e. 600m are still low income. Even the most favourable geopolitical developing conditions couldn't uplift 1.4B because there simply aren't enough middle/high income opportunities for that many bodies. With labour saving tech hollowing out manufacturing and ai hollowing out services, India trending towards 1.6B people is going to be extra fucked in the per capita game. Again that doesn't mean India couldn't eventually replicate PRC in sheer economic chains and potential, it just means they'll be governing a country with 60/70/80% poor with vast gini inequality between modern india and subsistent india where extra pop = more farm land dilution = potentially worse calorie security because inefficient farming = jobs programs > food security. AKA PRC demographers nightmare scenario that triggered family planning / one child policy that just barely dodged 2)... PRC more or less high income now, and certainly will be as old-poor dies and denominator converge towards young-rich. India will simply be saddled with too much old-poor, and young-poor that the young-rich will not meaningfully skew the per capita math. But on the other hand, per capita matters less than ability to generate abundance and I think/hope if India may meander their way to it.
    - vivzkestrel 9mo ago
      did you adjust for purchasing power parity? because 5$ in the USA would buy you a street side hot dog maybe but 5$ here will buy your family lunch at a restaurant, I kid you not
      - EGreg 9mo ago
        That doesn't really solve things across countries, does it? It just says that low-income people can eat. Doesn't help you to buy a Macbook, say, if you'll need to save up for 5 years. It holds lots of intelligent people back. And it's not just about intelligence. It's about global economic opportunities. But it's good to know that food can be produced to feed an entire family for $5 in 2026, somewhere in the world. I might go stay in Bangalore or Goa for a while lol.

by EGreg 9mo ago

rayiner 9mo ago

“Sharing wealth” is an idea that has millions of children’s blood all over it. It’s a recipe for keeping countries poor and backwards, so children die of disease, hunger, and political instability. When my dad was born in a village in the British Dominion of Pakistan, India/Bangladesh/Pakistan and Singapore were similarly poor. Nehru went to Cambridge and learned about socialism. Lee Kuan Yew went to Cambridge and learned about capitalism and high-trust British people: https://youtu.be/b_6H26fpZp8 https://youtu.be/b_6H26fpZp8 The rest is history. Singaporeans now get to stay in their home country, while desis flee to Anglo countries to escape the society Nehru and their grandparents created. Waiting for Europeans to give you money is a loser mentality, and people peddling that mentality in the name of “empathy” are causing harm. What the third world needs from Europe is the social and political technology that Europe itself used to become rich. That’s what people like LKY understood that so many third world leaders failed to learn.

vivzkestrel 9mo ago
you most certainly want to watch this one about india since you brought it into the conversation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LveXy5VBGUc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LveXy5VBGUc india is not a poor country anymore
- rayiner 9mo ago
  India is a desperately poor country. It has a GDP per capita of under $2,700 annually. That’s poorer than the U.S. was in 1880! Singapore has a GDP per capita thirty times higher. If India had grown as quickly as Singapore since 1965, it would have a GDP per capita of $21,000, higher than Russia or Turkey. As recently as 1990, India was richer per capita than China. Today, China is more than four times richer than India per capita. Of course if India can maintain the current growth trajectory for another couple of decades, and doesn’t fall into the middle income trap, that will change. But Nehru really fucked us all over. If he hadn’t become infatuated with socialism, India would already be on the precipice of being a developed country.
  - maxglute 9mo ago
    >doesn’t fall into the middle income trap There's 2 middle income traps. 1) the actual middle income trap, failing to move up value chain 2) the byproduct, traps population to middle income India has the sheer population to pass through 1) eventually. Ironically the byproduct of sheer population means they will unlikely pass 2). Middle income trap logic breaks part for large countries. There's a reason why bottom 40 quantile of PRC, i.e. 600m are still low income. Even the most favourable geopolitical developing conditions couldn't uplift 1.4B because there simply aren't enough middle/high income opportunities for that many bodies. With labour saving tech hollowing out manufacturing and ai hollowing out services, India trending towards 1.6B people is going to be extra fucked in the per capita game. Again that doesn't mean India couldn't eventually replicate PRC in sheer economic chains and potential, it just means they'll be governing a country with 60/70/80% poor with vast gini inequality between modern india and subsistent india where extra pop = more farm land dilution = potentially worse calorie security because inefficient farming = jobs programs > food security. AKA PRC demographers nightmare scenario that triggered family planning / one child policy that just barely dodged 2)... PRC more or less high income now, and certainly will be as old-poor dies and denominator converge towards young-rich. India will simply be saddled with too much old-poor, and young-poor that the young-rich will not meaningfully skew the per capita math. But on the other hand, per capita matters less than ability to generate abundance and I think/hope if India may meander their way to it.
  - vivzkestrel 9mo ago
    did you adjust for purchasing power parity? because 5$ in the USA would buy you a street side hot dog maybe but 5$ here will buy your family lunch at a restaurant, I kid you not
    - EGreg 9mo ago
      That doesn't really solve things across countries, does it? It just says that low-income people can eat. Doesn't help you to buy a Macbook, say, if you'll need to save up for 5 years. It holds lots of intelligent people back. And it's not just about intelligence. It's about global economic opportunities. But it's good to know that food can be produced to feed an entire family for $5 in 2026, somewhere in the world. I might go stay in Bangalore or Goa for a while lol.